Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and world assumptions. The description adds value by stating the tool is free and returns only ids, one-line descriptions, and prices, plus the recommendation to call describe_service next. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, front-loads the primary action and marketplace, then adds key facts (free, return content, follow-up call) in two short sentences. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains what results look like and the next step (describe_service). It does not cover pagination or default limits, but those are documented in the schema. Overall sufficient for an agent to call correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All three parameters (limit, query, category) have descriptions in the input schema, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 applies; the schema carries the parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches the Pocket Network agentic marketplace, lists return content (ids, one-line descriptions, prices) and notes it is free. It does not explicitly name sibling call_service, but the phrase 'call describe_service before calling one' implies the search-then-describe workflow, so the purpose is distinct enough.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear workflow hint: use search to find services, then describe_service for details before calling. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or compare with call_service, but the sequential guidance is actionable and sufficient for a search step.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.